User talk:SupaEdita

January 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to People's Mujahedin of Iran has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: People's Mujahedin of Iran was changed by SupaEdita (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.898212 on 2015-01-28T05:12:24+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigereconomy (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how I'm vandalizing the article? You're making an allegation of extreme misconduct against me, and not providing an example of how my actions qualify as misconduct. The bot that initially flagged my edit as vandalism obvious did a false positive, and you have not shown any evidence that my edit was vandalism. Your hostile/rude reaction to my edit, and your threat to have me banned, is very much against the principles of Wikipedia. Please stop being abusive and making false and defamatory allegations SupaEdita (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People's Mujahedin of Iran‎

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SupaEdita (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was reverting vandalism on a highly controversial Wikipedia article. Two accounts have been deleting 2,500 char+ of the article with:

1. at first no justification. Just a note in the edit summary that the well-sourced section is a "hoax", and then upon further pressing for justification,

2. links to online discussion forums that lacked credibility and original research and personal opinions about the credibility of the claims made by notable sources. Controversial changes should require consensus first. I was not the one proposing the controversial change, the two accounts that are removing the content are.

As it stands, the section of the article remains removed. You can see the justification given for the removal in the Talk section, and judge for yourself if it's valid. It's again linking to sources that are not credible, and again arguing for 'Original Research' to be taken into account in editorial decisions about notability and credibility

Decline reason:

Content disputes are not vandalism; edit warring is not acceptable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

May 2016

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User:TheTimesAreAChanging. Thank you. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 05:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. May I ask where I demonstrated a lack of assumption of good faith? SupaEdita (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do nothing in the project except edit warring on a single page [1]. Therefore, you suppose be indefinetly blocked already. Do not you understand what admin on 3RRNB is telling you? My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement over content is not "edit warring". I have had, I believe, cause to revert unjustified deletion of well-sourced section, and I have explained my reasoning in the Talk section. I have taken other viewpoints into account and significantly modified the original content in order to address the concerns some have expressed over the veracity of the claims of negotiations. Please at least take the time to see what I've changed from the original, and do not simply knee-jerk revert my contributions based on contrived justifications. SupaEdita (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]